DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINERALS), DALONTGUNJ CIRCLE ETC. versus MUSTAK ALI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 02-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MINERALS), DALONTGUNJ CIRCLE ETC. 
'r 
v. 
MUSTAK ALI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 2, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Uiw: 
Bihar State Government Service-Appointmem to Class lII and Class 
c 
IV posts-Procedure-District Magistrate or Deputy Co1nmissioner prepar-
ing list of eligible candidates according to procedure provided-Instructions 
to Deparl!nent concerned to constitute Selection co1nmittee for selection of 
candidates-Whether department concerned is bound by the selection made 
by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner-Held, no since the needs 
of each department would be frustrated if its own selection l'rocedure by duly 
D constituted Co11unittee is ignored. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1576of1996 
Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.93 of the Patna High Court in 
E 
C.R. No. 20 of ! 992. 
B.B. Singh for the Appellants. 
Uday Sinha and Anil K.r,Jha for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Though notice was served on the respondents, none appeared either in 
person or through counsel. 
Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. 
G 
C.A. NO. 1576 OF 1996@ SLP (C) No. 5321194 
~ 
The only controversy is whether the High Court was right m its im-
pugned order in CWJC No. 24/92 made on March 11, 1993 to direct the appel-
!ants to implement the list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at 
H 
Dalontgunj to appoint respondents ir. this case. There appears to be two proce-
8 
DEPUTY DIR. (MINERALS) DALANTGUNJ CIRCLE ETC. S v. MUSTAK ALI 
9 
dures prevailing in the State of Bihar, namely, Deputy Commissioner or Dis-
trict Magistrate to prepare list of eligible candidates according to the proce-
dure provided for appointment of Class III and Class IV employees to the 
vacancies existing in the District. Equally, instructions were given for the 
Department of the Mines and Geology which is now annexed as Annexure 2 
in the paper book. It would indicate in para 3 therein that a committee consist-
ing of (i) Deputy director (Geology)- Chairman, (ii) Assistant Director (Geol-
ogy) of the Circle - Member, (iii) District Welfare Officer of the District where 
the circle office is located - Member, (iv) One officer of Scheduled Castes/ 
Scheduled Tribes - Member, were required to select candidates for appoint-
ment as Class III and Class IV employees of the appellants-Department. In-
stead of acting on it, the appellate Court directed to appoint the candidates 
found in the list sent by the District Magistrate. The question is whether the 
department is bound by the directions and appoint candidate from the list pre-
pared by the Deputy Commissioner or the District Magistrate, as the case may 
be? If it is so held, the needs of each Department of Government, when re-
quired to select candidates and to prepare the select list after following the 
selection procedure and recruitment of Class III and Class IV employees would 
be frustrated and the prescribed procedure would be rendered surplusage and 
otios. Our answer is yes. The Department was to constitute a committee for 
selection of such candidates and to make appointment of the selected candi-
dates selected by the committee. Thus we can visualise that, as regards the 
Department of Mines and Geology, they are regulated by yet another prescribed 
procedure than was done by the district authorities to select the candidates as 
per requirement of the Department. Deputy Commission or District Magis-
trate, though is competent to prepare list after due selection, it would be for the 
Department to select and appoint according to rules. We are of further view 
that acceptance of list of candidates sent by District Magistrate would frus-
trate the regulations and acts counter productive to step up appointment of 
persons not either qualified or eligible for the posts of the other Department. It 
would not be a recruitment Board constituted for all the Departments. Under 
these circumstances, the High Court was wholly unjustified in issuing direc-
tion to follow the list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner. The said direc-
tions are set aside. 
It would be open to the appellants to select such candidates according to 
rules. It would call the names from employment exchange and also by publi-
cation in newspaper and to select the eligible and fit candidates for 8 vacan-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
cies available in the Department or any post available as on today. It s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.